I was studying the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (bhikkhu bodhi's version) when I stumbled over what appears to be an inconsistency. It is probalby just a failure to understand things correctly on my side, so I hope one of you can clarify the issue.

It is about the base coinciding with citta and cetaskia.

In the abhidhammattha sangaha it is first stated that citta and cetasika have the same base (ekavatthuka, p.77). Yet in the chapter on the 12 sensbases (Āyatanānani) it is stated that citta coincide with the mind-base, while cetasika coincide with the mental-object base (p.287). The mind-base and mental-object base are not the same, but this would mean that the statement about ekavatthuka is false...

I've been looking at the text but I'm having trouble understanding your statement:

Yet in the chapter on the 12 sensbases (Āyatanānani) it is stated that citta coincide with the mind-base, while cetasika coincide with the mental-object base (p.287). The mind-base and mental-object base are not the same, but this would mean that the statement about ekavatthuka is false...

Evidently we're all having trouble understanding....

I would note that what you are asking about is Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary, and he may well have made some slip. Noone is perfect...

lojong1 wrote:What I see so far that might cause confusion is that for one English 'base' there are two Pali words--vatthu in ch.II.1, and aayatana in ch.VII.36.I'm still looking...

Yes, that's a good point. I'm still having trouble figuring out the exact nature of the contradiction is that Wouter is concerned about. In the first page he references the point is that there are various cetasikas that arise and cease with a particular citta. I can't see how the second page contradicts that.

Citta and cetasika are stationed respectively at the internal and external sides of the base-pair-sphere-aayatana-thingy, i.e at the maanaayatana-mind-base. and dhammaayatana-mental-object-base. When these two meet, they start a cognitive series (viithi) at the related vatthu-base. Vatthu-base is dvaara-door is pasaada-organ from different angles, and depending on what's happening with who's looking, I guess, or something. Salayatana means 6-base, or 6-sphere, yet there are 12 items in the list. That's because they are 6 pairs--2 sides per 'base'. The mind base and mental contents base mentioned in the book are 2 sides of the same mind-sphere/base. Anyways however you look at it--same sphere/aayatana or same base/vatthu--there's no contradiction.Smeg...

thanks for the replies!I called it a contradiction because I couldn't find the right word . What I meant was more a point of confusion... I guess both answeres are plausible, that the bases are two sides of the same coin, and that there might be a difference between vatthu and ayatana lost in translation.

mikenz66 wrote:I'm still having trouble figuring out the exact nature of the contradiction is that Wouter is concerned about. In the first page he references the point is that there are various cetasikas that arise and cease with a particular citta. I can't see how the second page contradicts that.

It doesn't.Citta and cetasika always (i)arise and (ii)cease together--these are two of the four points [translated] on p.77. Wouter was concerned with point (iv) below:(Definition) "§ 1. Ekuppàda–nirodhà ca ekàlambana-vatthukà Cetoyuttà dvipa~n~nàsa dhammà cetasikà matà."Cetasika is (i) that which arises (uppaada) together with consciousness (ceto), (ii) that which perishes (nirodhaa) together with it, (iii) that which has an identical object (aalambana) with it, (iv) that which has a common basis (vatthu) with it.P.77: Common base (vatthu) for citta and cetasika, or...p.287: Different bases (aayatana) for citta and cetasika. ("The mental-object base (dhammaayatana)...excludes...citta, which is identical with the mind-base (manaayatana).")

Same manual p.135: "But mental object (Dhammaaramma.nam) is sixfold: sensitive matter, subtle matter, consciousness (citta), mental factors (cetasika), Nibbaana, and concepts." 'Citta and cetasika share the nature of having (vatthukaa) one object and one arising-passing.' Although it may amount to practically the same thing, it does not say they share one base (vatthu).Unless I'm wrong and it does, duh.

Last edited by lojong1 on Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

lojong1 wrote:Although it may amount to practically the same thing, it [Pali] does not say[here explicitly] they share one base (vatthu).

Narada Thera's Abhidhammatthasangaha p.98: "No consciousness exists apart from its concomitants. Both consciousness and its respective co-adjuncts arise and perish simultaneously. But there are some material qualities, such as Vi¤¤àtti Råpa31 (Modes of Intimation) that arise and perish simultaneously with the consciousness. To exclude them the third property of having a common object has been attributed. That which possesses these three characteristics must necessarily be endowed with the fourth—a common basis [only in physical realms]."

Bodhi's Manual p.77: "Finally, [only] in those realms in which the aggregate of material form is found, i.e. in the sensuous world and the fine-material world, the citta and its cetasikas have the same physical base, that is, they arise with the common support of either one of the material sense organs or the heart-base. This is the fourth characteristic of cetasikas."

'Base' (the noun vatthu), is not there; the Pali itself is not separated into four characteristics of cetasika.

Hmm, but vatthuka is there. Surely it's just a matter of style of expression?

I'd be really interested to hear from an expert in commentarial Pali, (This material comes from at least 1500 years after the Buddha's time). Furthermore, I presume that Bhikhu Bodhi is choosing some of his translations based on the material that is being summarized from the Abhidhamma itself, as well as the ancient Abhidhamma Commentaries and the various commentaries that postdate the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (such as the modern commentary by Ledi Sayadaw).

wouter_doorn wrote:The mind-base and mental-object base are not the same, but this would mean that the statement about ekavatthuka is false...

perhaps mind base and mental base refer to the same thing?

A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."

lojong1 wrote:What I see so far that might cause confusion is that for one English 'base' there are two Pali words--vatthu in ch.II.1, and aayatana in ch.VII.36.I'm still looking...

I think that might be it as well. From memory, both citta and cetasika would have heart-base as vatthu (haddaya vatthu), but when it comes to ayatana - citta belongs to mana-ayatana, while cetasikas belong to dhamma-ayatana (nibbana and subtle rupas are also classed as dhamma-ayatana I think). But, why exactly are citta and cetasikas classed as different ayatanas, I'm not sure. But at least one thing it might be useful is for classifying beings on different planes for example - I remember Nina Van Gorkom recently writing on dsg that for non-percipient beings for example - they have no citta (mana-ayatana), but they do have rupa (dhamma-ayatana). I'll chase up a link to that post on dsg when I find a bit of time, or maybe just ask her about this topic.

Hi, after a bit of discussion, it seems classifications as vatthu and as ayatana are simply two different ways to classify dhammas, in order to show their different aspects. So, classification by vatthu has to do with the physical base of arising. So both citta and cetasikas have the same physical base of arising, while the 5 senses of course each have their own. When it comes to ayatana classification, it has to do with how dhammas meet or associate together.

So, cetasikas are put in dhamma-ayatana together with subtle rupas and nibbana, because these are dhammas that can only be experienced through the mind-door (interestingly, cetasikas cannot arise without citta, subtle rupas can, while nibbana doesn't arise or cease at all, being unconditioned). Citta is put into mana-ayatana, because citta is basically the meeting point for experiencing so to speak (which is also why mana-ayatana is classified as internal ayatana, while dhamma-ayatana is classified as external ayatana in the internal/external classification). And the 5 sense organs and objects are put in their respective ayatanas, since they are experienced through the respective sense-door.